IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100724 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. GOLI PATAGAR, A/A 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, AT AND R/O. BARGI, KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. HEMAVATI P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. VENKATRAMAN PATAGAR, A/A 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, AT AND R/O. BARGI, KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.

2. SMT. DEVI W/O. NAGAPPA PATAGAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, D by ig G it I a R ll I y JA s i A g . ned R/O. BENNEHONDA, KODKANI, BYAHATTI Location: HIGH KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.

COURT OF KARNATAKA, …RESPONDENTS DHARWAD BENCH (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC KUMTA TALUK UTTARA KANNADA IN R.A. NO.08/2023 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2023, PASSED IN O.S. NO.35/2019 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUMTA, AT KUMTA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Even though the matter is listed for admission, heard arguments on merits.

2. This is the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC by the appellant/defendant No.1 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 passed in R.A.No.08/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.35/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kumta.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial Court praying for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are situated at Bergi Village, Mirjana Hobli, Kumta Taluk. It is contended that all the suit schedule properties are tenanted properties, which were cultivated by the father of the plaintiff. He died on 01.09.1969. After his death, the mother of parties submitted an application for grant of occupancy rights, and after enquiry, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in the name of defendant No.1. At that time, he was minor and was initially represented by his uncle, and after the demise of his uncle, by his mother-

Mahadevi Goli Patagar.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 being her brother and defendant No.2 being her sister are in joint and common possession of the suit schedule properties. The marriages of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were performed during the lifetime of their father. The plaintiff, who resides in the same village, was cultivating the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.1. Hence, the suit for partition was filed.

6. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement before the Trial Court, wherein he admitted the relationship between the parties, but denied all other averments made in the plaint. He contended that the plaintiff never cultivated the suit schedule properties and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. The Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues.

“1. Whether defendant No.1 proves that plaintiff is not in joint possession of suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff prove that she had demanded for partition and it was denied by defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

4. What order or decree?

Additional Issue No.1: Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties?”

7. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit holding that the